re: Atlantis and Hancock
- Well I'm piecing together the puzzle and thought you might like to view.
Interested British list members will no doubt already be familiar with
this--the program dates originally to 1999! But it was pretty new to me so
pardon your indulgence.
I always liked the pictures in Hancock's "Heaven's Mirror". The
corresponding 1998 TV series, "Quest for the Lost Civilization" had record
audiences. It seems that the BBC either wanted in on the action or
academics wanted to set the record straight. Two documentaries were made as
Oct 28, 1999: Episode 1: Atlantis Uncovered
Nov 4, 1999: Episode 2: Atlantis Reborn
Hancock does not feature in the first one (just a little), but the second
one is devoted almost exclusively to him and Robert Bauval.
I didn't know that: I have only seen the first one.
But from the transcripts and the impartial ruling against the Horizon team,
one wonders if they weren't just trying to get in on the "action".
At any rate, the program began with the narrator announcing:
"Graham Hancock is determined to re-write history. His books about the
ancient past have sold in their millions, making him a leading figure in a
group of influential and radical authors. Hancock has a huge following who
believe passionately in his controversial views that civilisation was
invented by a God-like people ignored by orthodox historians."
This seems to be the key-point: people passionately much of what Hancock
writes. Why is that? I'm inclined to think it says more about our
willingness to believe than anything substantial about Hancock's claims.
People *want* to think there were lost civilizations. Why do you suppose
Prior to the documentary, Hancock seemed upbeat. Writing before it aired,
"Most of my friends in television have warned me that I must expect a ritual
slaughter in which I will be intellectually dismembered and consumed by a
tribe of furious academics...We shall see. All I know is that the Horizon
team, under Director Chris Hale, struck me as intelligent, decent and
reasonable people. They spent two full days - several weeks apart -
interviewing me at my home in Devon and as far as I could see they wanted to
be fair and to give me the opportunity to defend myself."
So he was in for a shock, eh.
In researching this, I found a couple ideas of Hancock I didn't know before:
Hancock: "One of the many gross misrepresentations of my work to appear in
the recent BBC2 'Horizon' documentary ('Atlantis Reborn', 4 November 1999)
was the repetition of a most unfortunate error often made by other media as
well since the publication of Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995. This is the
error that I was somehow the originator or creator of the theory that
identifies Antarctica with the lost continent of Atlantis.
I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OR CREATOR OF THIS THEORY. The full credit for it,
as I explained in Chapters 50 and 51 of Fingerprints of the Gods, belongs to
the Canadian authors Rand and Rose Flem-Ath who set it out in their book
When The Sky Fell (1995) which I was privileged to read in manuscript form
in 1993. I believed then, and believe still, that their theory is a
ground-breaking one and that it is immensely important to any proper
consideration of the possibility that there may have been a lost
civilisation. My role vis-à-vis this original and well-thought-out theory
was simply that of a reporter and synthesizer, just as I also reported and
synthesized the work and theories of many other writers and researchers in
Fingerprints of the Gods. Nevertheless despite the fact that I made this
clear at the outset, and have continued to make it clear at ever opportunity
thereafter when the Atlantis/Antarctica theory has been brought up, there
have been numerous occasions in both the print and broadcast media when this
theory has been wrongfully credited to me.
These repeated errors have, I know, been a source of great distress for the
Flem-Aths, which I very much regret."
[side note: don't you love how Hancock has put the point in upper case
letters. Yes, Hancock, you are the paragon of probity. sheesh: he builds
his arguments on the shoulders of others and, after reaping the rewards,
then points to them. He did the same with Jane Seller's who clearly does
not endorse Hancock's skewered reading of her work.
Hancock has the Midas touch. He can take other people's arguments and turn
them to best-selling gold. Hancock also relies heavily on Robert Bauval's
arguments. And both of them are making tons of not-so "lost" cash.]
* * *
re: Giza pyramids
Hancock: "I accept Egyptological opinion that the great Pyramids were built
in 2500 BC. I am not saying that the Pyramids were built earlier than that.
What I'm saying is that they were built in 2500 BC, but designed to
commemorate architecturally, symbolically and astronomically an earlier
Ed Krupp's riposte: "In The Orion Mystery there's a nice double page spread,
and anybody looking at this would say ah, Giza pyramids, belt of Orion, one
kind of looks like the other, you know you've got 3 in a row, slanted. We've
got a map and what I was bothered by turned out to be really pretty obvious.
In the back of my head I knew that something was wrong with these pictures,
and what's wrong with these pictures in their presentation is that north for
the constellation of Orion is here at the top of the page. North for the
Giza pyramids is down here. Now they're not marked, but I knew which way
north was at Giza and I knew which way north was in Orion.
To make the map of the pyramids on the ground match the stars of Orion in
the sky you have to turn Egypt upside down, and if you don't want to do that
then you've got to turn the sky upside down."
[according to the alignment theory, the pyramids point to the belt of the
great hunter. It is poetic, no?
* * *
Hancock: "It bears all the hallmarks of a designed ceremonial, ritual or
Hancock invited the Boston University Geologist Robert Schoch to inspect the
Schoch: "I went there, in this case, actually hoping that it was a totally
man-made structure that was submerged underwater, that dated maybe back to
6000 BC or more. When I got there, and I got to dive on the structure, I
have to admit I was very disappointed because I was basically convinced
after a few dives that this was primarily, possibly totally, a natural
* * *
More as I have time.